I M P R O V I N G A M E R I C A’ S H O U S I N G 2 0 1 5

EMERGING
TRENDS
IN THE

REMODELING
MARKET

JOINT CENTER FOR HOUSING STUDIES

OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University
H A R VA R D G R A D U AT E S C H O O L O F D E S I G N | H A R VA R D K E N N E D Y S C H O O L

Principal support for this research was provided by the Policy Advisory Board of the Joint Center for Housing
Studies. Policy Advisory Board member companies participating in the Remodeling Futures Steering Committee
include:

ABC Supply Masco Corporation

Andersen Corporation Move, Inc.
Builders FirstSource National Gypsum Company
Dow Building Solutions Oldcastle Building Products, Inc.
Ferguson Enterprises Owens Corning
Fortune Brands Home & Security Pella Corporation
GAF Materials Corporation Ply Gem Industries, Inc.
Hanley Wood, LLC ProBuild, Inc.
The Home Depot The Sherwin-Williams Company
JELD-WEN USG Corporation
Kohler Co. Zillow
Lutron Electronics

Additional support was provided by member companies of the Remodeling Futures

Steering Committee:

AARP Lowe’s Companies, Inc.

American Exteriors, LLC National Association of Home Builders
Bostik National Association of Realtors®
BSCi National Association of the Remodeling Industry
Case Design/Remodeling Inc. Neil Kelly Company
CEDIA Owens Construction
Clearwater Exteriors LLC Power Home Remodeling Group
Custom Design & Construction Rebuilding Together, Inc.
Cygnus Business Media Robert Bowden, Inc.
Dreamstyle Remodeling Roxul Inc.
DuPont Building Innovations SGC Horizon
The Farnsworth Group Sola Group Inc.
FirstService Brands Statewide Remodeling
Harvey Building Products Steves and Sons, Inc.
Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association Synchrony Financial
Henkel Corporation The Tapco Group
HIRI U.S. Census Bureau
HomeAdvisor U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Houzz Wellborn Cabinet Inc.
ITW Paslode Wells Fargo Retail Services
James Hardie Building Products

The Joint Center for Housing Studies thanks Masco Corporation

for supporting the production of this report.

The opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily represent the views of Harvard University, the Policy Advisory Board of the Joint
Center for Housing Studies, sponsors of the Remodeling Futures Program, or other persons or organizations providing support to the Joint
Center for Housing Studies.

©2015 President and Fellows of Harvard College.

1
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
As a $300 billion industry,
home improvements and repairs
currently generate about 1.8
percent of US economic activity—
slightly below its decade-long
average share. Indeed, the slow
recovery in the housing market
as well as in the broader
economy is holding back
homeowner spending on the
larger discretionary projects
that typically fuel growth in
remodeling. But as prices for
both single-family owner-
occupied homes and rental
properties continue to firm,
and as new industry niches
continue to emerge, investment
in improvements to the nation’s
housing stock is likely to
strengthen.
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE REMODELING MARKET
While the US construction industry is recovering, most sec-
tors still have a long way to go. By 2014 estimates, spending
on homebuilding was less than 60 percent of its pre-recession
levels, while spending on nonresidential construction had
retraced less than 40 percent of its drop during the downturn.
Indeed, many analysts believe that changes in the demograph-
ics of the population and in the structure of the economy will
delay a full rebound in both residential and nonresidential
construction activity for several years.
The home improvement industry, however, has fared much
better in the aftermath of the Great Recession. The US housing
stock of more than 130 million homes requires regular invest-
ment merely to offset normal depreciation. And many house-
holds that might have traded up to more desirable homes
during the downturn decided instead to make improvements
to their current homes. Meanwhile, federal and state stimu-
lus programs encouraged homeowners and rental property
owners to invest in energy-efficient upgrades that they might
otherwise have deferred. Finally, many rental property own-
ers, responding to a surge in demand from households either
facing foreclosure or nervous about buying amid the housing
market uncertainty, reinvested in their units.
As a result, improvement and repair spending held up rela-
tively well over the cycle, falling only 13 percent from peak
to trough compared with the more than 60 percent plunge in
residential construction spending. And while homebuilding is
many years away from a full recovery, the home improvement
industry could easily post record-level spending in 2015.
Even so, the remodeling industry faces a radically different
landscape than before the recession. The generation of house-
JOINT CENTER FOR HOUSING STUDIES OF HARVARD UNIVERSIT Y 1
holds now entering the housing market has different home Figure 1
improvement priorities. And, after years of declining revenue
and high failure rates, a revitalized home improvement indus- The Rebound in Homeowner Improvement
try is in the process of repositioning itself to address emerging Spending Has Lifted the Remodeling Market
growth markets and rebuild its workforce to better serve its Back Near $300 Billion
evolving customer base. Finally, as housing developers shift Billions of Dollars
their focus from exurban communities toward urban and older 350 324
suburban neighborhoods, high-income metropolitan areas on 20 291 298
300
both coasts are re-emerging as leaders in home improvement 280
18
32 21
281
21
23
31
spending. With these changes comes a new set of opportuni- 250 228
31 46 34 30
214
ties for the remodeling industry that will help to ensure its 200 23
25 43 47 50
52
32
long-term growth. 25
150 34 37

226
100 188 189 180 192
THE IMPROVEMENT SPENDING RECOVERY 132 134
50
In 2013, homeowner improvement spending accounted for
just under 65 percent of the nearly $300 billion remodeling 0
2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013
market (Figure 1). While still below the nearly 70 percent peak
in 2007, this share is up from the trough in 2011. Meanwhile, ■ Owner Improvements ■ Rental Improvements
homeowner maintenance and repair expenditures totaled $52 ■ Owner Maintenance ■ Rental Maintenance
billion in 2013, lifting its share from 14 percent in 2007 to about
18 percent by 2013. Investment in the rental stock was also on Notes: Tabulations of 2013 data use JCHS-adjusted weights. For more information about the re-weighting methodology, see
www.jchs.harvard.edu/research/improving-americas-housing.
an uptick, increasing from just over 16 percent of spending in Sources: JCHS tabulations of US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), American Housing Surveys; US
Department of Commerce, Surveys of Expenditures for Residential Improvement and Repairs (C-50); and Abbe Will, Estimating
2007 to about 18 percent in 2013. National Levels of Home Improvement and Repair Spending by Rental Property Owners, JCHS Research Note N10-2, October 2010.

At this level of spending, the home improvement market

appears to be returning to its long-term trend. On an infla- Figure 2
tion-adjusted basis, outlays per owner averaged $2,500 in
2013, well below the peak of $3,400 in 2007 but more than Discretionary Projects Account for a Significant
8 percent above the $2,300 annual average posted between Share of Improvement Spending
1995 and 2005. Share of Spending in 2013 (Percent)

Annual homeowner spending on improvements as a share Kitchen Remodels

Disaster and Additions
of home value, averaging just over 1 percent in 2013, has Repairs 9.5
Bath Remodels
remained remarkably stable over the past decade. Even 8.2
and Additions
during the market boom in 2004–07, per-owner expendi- Property 7.7
tures remained near this level, with percentage increases Improvements
13.7
in spending roughly matching the percentage rise in house Other Room
prices. Similarly, the decline in home improvement spend- Additions and
Alterations
ing during the downturn was proportional to that in national 13.1
house prices. Interior
Replacements
11.8

DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS ON THE UPSWING

With the economy strengthening and house prices recover- System
ing, spending by owners on discretionary home improvements Exterior
Upgrades
15.7
rose by almost $6 billion between 2011 and 2013. Even more Replacements
significantly, the share of spending on discretionary projects 20.3

increased for the first time since 2005. This category includes Homeowner Spending in 2013 = $192 Billion
larger home remodels and additions that improve homeowner
lifestyles but can be deferred when economic conditions are Notes: Tabulations use JCHS-adjusted weights. Other room additions and alterations include outside attachments.
uncertain. In 2013, discretionary spending on kitchen and bath Source: Table A-1.

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE REMODELING MARKET JOINT CENTER FOR HOUSING STUDIES OF HARVARD UNIVERSIT Y 2
upgrades contributed 17 percent of the $192 billion in total almost 50 percent. However, given the sharp retreat in discre-
homeowner spending, while expenditures for additions and tionary spending during the downturn and the current recovery
major structural alterations to other rooms made up another in housing prices, the modest uptick in discretionary outlays
13 percent (Figure 2). from 2011 to 2013 suggests that these types of projects will
likely drive a significant share of growth in the home improve-
Replacement projects, in contrast, refer to improvements ment market in the future.
that affect the safety and efficient functioning of the home.
Spending in this category across the business cycle is gener- The final two project categories—property improvements
ally more stable than on discretionary projects. In 2013, exte- and disaster repairs—together contributed over 20 percent
rior replacements (for example, roofing, siding, windows, and of homeowner spending. Property improvements refer to
exterior doors) accounted for 20 percent of total homeowner outlays for structures other than the principal residence,
expenditures, and interior replacements (including flooring, such as detached garages, sheds, or other outbuildings.
wall coverings, and ceilings) for almost 12 percent. Meanwhile, This category also covers nonstructural improvements, such
spending on systems and equipment upgrades (including as driveways and walkways, fencing and walls, patios and
plumbing, electrical, HVAC, and major appliances) amounted terraces, and swimming pools and tennis courts. Disaster-
to almost 16 percent of overall outlays. related repairs and improvements are not linked to specific
project categories.
Until the housing downturn, the shares of homeowner spend-
ing for discretionary and replacement projects were almost
equal. But in 2013, discretionary spending had fallen to 30 per- HOUSEHOLD SPENDING BY GENERATION
cent of the total, while replacement spending had increased to Spending on home improvement activity peaks among own-
ers in their mid-30s to mid-50s, a time when family sizes and
household incomes are typically growing. In 2013, owners in
Figure 3 this age range spent about 30 percent more on average on
improvement projects than the rest of the population. The fact
The Baby Boomers Continue to Dominate that most of the baby-boom generation (born 1945–64) was
Spending, While Millennials Still Account in this high-spending age group during the housing boom no
for Only a Small Share of the Market doubt contributed to the record levels of home improvement
Share of Improvement Spending by Generation (Percent) expenditures in the middle of the last decade.

While the baby boomers are moving out of the prime home
Pre-Baby Boom Leading improvement spending years, they are still active in the mar-
15.3 Baby Boom
21.2 ket. They survived the housing downturn better than most
other generations, buffered from the drop in house values
Millennial
2.6 by many years of strong house price appreciation. The baby
boomers have also remained in the labor force well beyond
Trailing
the traditional retirement age of previous generations. Indeed,
Gen-X although average per-owner spending on home improvement
13.4
projects fell more than 15 percent from 2007 to 2013, spending
by owners aged 55 and over declined less than 9 percent. Baby
boomers thus accounted for almost half of all home improve-
Trailing Baby
Boom ment spending nationally in 2013 (Figure 3).
26.6
Leading Gen-X
20.9 Meanwhile, most gen-X homeowners (born 1965–84) are
now in their prime spending years. Although this generation
Homeowner Spending in 2013 = $
$192 Billion
originally numbered almost 10 million (12 percent) less than
the baby boom, years of strong immigration filled its ranks.
Notes: The pre-baby boom generation was born before 1945, leading baby boom in 1945–54, trailing baby boom in 1955–64, leading gen-X
in 1965–74, trailing gen-X in 1975–84, and millennial in 1985–2004. Tabulations use JCHS-adjusted weights. By the time they were 20–39 years old in 2005, the number of
Source: Table A-3. gen-Xers thus equaled that of the baby boomers at compa-
rable ages. In 2013, gen-Xers contributed over a third of home
improvement outlays, with the leading edge alone accounting
for over 20 percent.

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE REMODELING MARKET JOINT CENTER FOR HOUSING STUDIES OF HARVARD UNIVERSIT Y 3
 Figure 4
After the Downturn, the Construction Industry
Included a Smaller Share of Younger Workers
Share of Construction Labor Force (Percent)
50
42.9
40
34.8
27.9
30
20
10
0 (Figure 4). Most notably, the industry attracts fewer younger
Under Age 35 Foreign-Born
■ 2007 ■ 2013
Note: The number of employed and unemployed workers in the construction industry fell from 8.3 million
in 2007 to 6.8 million in 2013.
Source: JCHS tabulations of US Census Bureau, American Community Surveys.
Much of the millennial generation (born 1985–2004), in con-
trast, has yet to enter the housing market. Even the oldest
members of this age group have been slow to form households
and buy homes because of high levels of student loan debt;
high rates of unemployment or underemployment (and low
salaries and wages for those that are employed); and stringent
mortgage lending standards. In 2013, millennial homeowners
therefore accounted for just under $5 billion in home improve-
ment spending, or only 2.6 percent of the total.
Once the millennials begin to catch up with the gen-Xers in
terms of progress in the housing market, however, their sheer
numbers alone will drive up improvement spending. At more
than 79 million births between 1985 and 2004, the number
of native-born members of the millennial generation already
equals the number of births of the baby-boom generation. By
2025, when millennials are more fully engaged in the hous-
ing market, immigration is expected to have increased their
numbers to more than 86 million. This will make the millennial
generation almost 7 percent larger than the baby-boom gen-
eration at comparable ages.
INDUSTRY STRUCTURE AND WORKFORCE TRENDS
Small contractor firms continue to dominate the home improve-
ment industry, with a majority consisting of self-employed
individuals or partnerships with no employees on payroll. The
traditional dominance of small businesses in this industry has
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE REMODELING MARKET
provided little opportunity for firms to develop skilled employ-
ees, which in turn has created growing fears of a labor short-
age as the market continues to recover.
From a high of more than 20 percent in 2010, the national
unemployment rate for the broader construction industry
declined to just over 8 percent at the end of 2014. However, the
last time that construction unemployment was this low was
in 2007, when the workforce was 26 percent larger. The con-
27.9
struction labor force shrank significantly during the downturn,
suggesting that workers either moved to other industries or
dropped out of the labor force altogether.
The construction labor force is not only smaller than at the
2.6 2.5 peak of the market, but it also has different characteristics
Women
workers, with the share of the labor force under age 35 down
eight percentage points between 2007 and 2013. And despite
rapid growth in the foreign-born population in recent decades
and the industry’s long-time reliance on immigrants, the
foreign-born share of the labor force was flat over this period.
Finally, women workers, already underrepresented in the
industry, made up a slightly smaller share of the construction
workforce in 2013.
GEOGRAPHIC CONCENTRATION OF SPENDING
During the housing downturn, the sharpest declines in improve-
ment spending were generally in the Sunbelt. These areas of
the country were home to most of the overbuilt markets that
ultimately experienced high shares of distressed properties.
As a result, improvement spending in the South and West has
been slow to rebound, although the strong house price recov-
ery in these regions suggests that remodeling activity will likely
accelerate in the coming years.
Homeowners in the nation’s metropolitan areas continue to
account for a disproportionately large share—81 percent—of
overall improvement spending. Thanks primarily to their higher
incomes and higher home values, owners in metro areas spent
50 percent more on improvement projects on average than
their non-metro counterparts in 2013. Moreover, spending was
up 5.0 percent among metro area owners between 2011 and
2013, but down by 0.2 percent among non-metro households.
Within metropolitan areas, the growing popularity of infill
developments has stimulated an increase in improvement
spending in central cities. The strongest growth, however, has
occurred in inner suburban neighborhoods, where homes are
typically older and smaller than in the outer suburbs. Indeed,
home improvement spending in inner suburbs rose 11 percent
JOINT CENTER FOR HOUSING STUDIES OF HARVARD UNIVERSIT Y 4

Figure 5
Younger Homeowners Devote a Much Larger
Share of Improvement Spending to DIY Projects
Do-It-Yourself Share of Spending in 2013 (Percent)
40
34
30
21
18
20
10
0
Under 35 35 to 44 45 to 54
Age of Homeowner
Note: Tabulations use JCHS-adjusted weights.
Source: JCHS tabulations of HUD, American Housing Survey.
between 2011 and 2013, surpassing the growth rate for metro
areas overall.
The rental stock in metro areas also has benefited from higher
improvement spending. With many younger households delay-
ing marriage and family, demand for rental housing—particu-
larly in downtown locations—has surged. While these house-
holds are likely to gravitate toward homeownership in the
suburbs as they age, growth in investment in rental properties
is likely to remain strong in the coming years.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR GROWTH
While the home improvement market has largely recovered
from the Great Recession, the aging of the US population
brings several opportunities for further growth. In particular,
the movement of the baby-boom generation into the traditional
retirement years is already pushing up demand for accessibil-
ity improvements that will enable owners to remain safely in
their homes as they age. Given their significant housing wealth
and willingness to remain in the labor force longer than previ-
ous generations, baby boomers are likely to remain active in
the home improvement market. Indeed, with the large gen-X
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE REMODELING MARKET
population in their peak remodeling years, their spending
should compensate for any falloff among the baby boomers.
However, the key to future market growth is the millennial
generation. While currently lagging previous generations in
forming households and buying homes, the millennials will
eventually give a dramatic lift to home improvement spend-
ing. More immediately, the growing presence of millennials in
the rental market is encouraging property owners to invest in
updates to their units.
17 The impending influx of younger homeowners is also likely to
14 reverse the long-term slide in the do-it-yourself (DIY) market.
11
In 2013, younger owners (under the age of 35) put a third of
their outlays into DIY improvements—almost twice the share
among all owners (Figure 5). Since a much larger share of DIY
55 to 64 65 and All
than of professional spending is for discretionary projects (over
Over 40 percent vs. 28 percent), increased DIY spending should also
boost the discretionary share of improvement expenditures.
The growing involvement of younger households in the home
improvement market also holds out promise that sustainable
home improvements will continue to be one of the fastest
growing market segments. Increasing demand for energy-
efficient upgrades, spurred by government incentives in the
form of tax credits, remains the primary driver of sustainable
projects, although homeowner spending on healthy home
modifications, water conservation and efficiency upgrades,
and products utilizing rapidly renewable or recycled materials
also continues to gain momentum. With US household mobility
rates declining steadily, homeowners have more incentive to
make energy-efficient improvements to their current homes
despite typically long payback periods.
JOINT CENTER FOR HOUSING STUDIES OF HARVARD UNIVERSIT Y 5
2
CHANGING HOUSEHOLD
DEMOGRAPHICS
The shifting characteristics of
US households will shape the
home remodeling market for
many years to come. Longer-
term trends include the aging
population, stagnating incomes,
and declining household mobility,
while more recent changes
include increasing racial and
ethnic diversity and growth in the
number of young renters. Each of
these forces will have meaningful
impacts on improvement spending
levels, the mix of discretionary
and replacement projects, and the
choice of professional or do-it-
yourself installation.
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE REMODELING MARKET
OLDER HOMEOWNERS REMAIN KEY
With members of the baby-boom generation now entering their
retirement years, the number and share of older households
are set to increase significantly. According to the Joint Center’s
2013 projections, the number of householders age 65 and over
will rise from 26 million in 2010 to 35 million in 2020, and to 45
million in 2030.
Meanwhile, the share of improvement spending by homeowners
age 65 and over has already increased dramatically, rising from
just 13 percent in 2005 to 23 percent in 2013. This growth reflects
not only the rising number of older owners, but also an increase
in per-owner outlays. Indeed, more than 60 percent of the growth
in share is due to higher inflation-adjusted per-owner spending.
On average, baby boomers have more wealth and greater lon-
gevity, and remain in the workforce longer than previous gen-
erations. But like those that preceded them, the overwhelming
majority prefer to age in place. A 2013 survey by the Demand
Institute found that 55 percent of baby boomers have lived in
their current homes for more than ten years, and 63 percent do
not plan to move again. Of that group, fully 85 percent intend to
stay in their current homes by choice (rather than being forced
to stay for financial or other reasons).
Baby boomers have been, and continue to be, a driving force in
the home improvement market. As members of this generation
have aged from their 30s and 40s in 1995 to their 50s and 60s
today, they have consistently accounted for about half of total
spending (Figure 6). Although their share has started to dip
in recent years as the gen-Xers moved into the prime home-
ownership and improvement spending years (roughly ages 35
to 55), baby boomers still make up the largest share of the
remodeling market.
JOINT CENTER FOR HOUSING STUDIES OF HARVARD UNIVERSIT Y 6
 SLUGGISH HOUSEHOLD INCOME GAINS
Figure 6
The stagnation or erosion of incomes among all but the top
While the Baby Boomers Are Still quintile of households is another long-term trend that affects
the Primary Drivers of Improvement Spending, remodeling expenditures. The average inflation-adjusted
Gen-Xers Are Gaining Share income of households in the lowest income quintile remained
Share of Spending by Generation (Percent) unchanged from 1993 to 2013, while that for households in
the middle income quintiles rose a modest 3–8 percent. In
100 contrast, households in the highest income quintile saw a 15
90 percent increase over the same period.
80
70
Lower-income homeowners are much less likely than higher-
60
income households to make improvements, and those that do
50
spend considerably less on those projects. Among households
40
between ages 35 and 64, only half (51 percent) of those in
30
the lowest income quintile reported undertaking a project in
20
2012–13 compared with more than two-thirds of owners in the
10
highest income quintile (Figure 7a). Middle-aged homeown-
0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 ers in the lowest income quintile who did make improvements
spent just $2,900 annually, significantly less than the $8,600
■ Millennial ■ Gen-X ■ Baby Boom ■ Pre-Baby Boom average among highest-income homeowners. Even owners in
the middle income quintiles spent 40–60 percent less on home
Note: The millennial generation was born in 1985–2004, gen-X in 1965–84, baby boom in 1945–64, and pre-baby boom before
1945. Tabulations of 2013 data use JCHS-adjusted weights. remodeling projects than top-income owners.
Source: JCHS tabulations of HUD, American Housing Surveys.

At the same time, however, lowest-quintile households spend

much more of their incomes on home improvements (4.4 per-
The aging of US homeowners affects the demand for home cent) than top-quintile households (1.5 percent) (Figure 7b).
improvements in several ways. Regardless of economic con- This is because much of their spending is not discretionary,
ditions or changes in the business cycle, older homeowners and most homeowners ultimately make the upgrades to roof-
tend to focus much more of their spending on replacement ing, plumbing, electrical, and other systems necessary to keep
projects related to roofing, siding, windows, doors, plumbing, their properties safe and comfortable. The cost of these often
electrical wiring, and other systems (over 50 percent in a typi- unavoidable projects thus falls much more heavily on lowest-
cal year), and less on discretionary projects such as kitchen income homeowners.
and bath upgrades (under 30 percent). Younger homeowners,
in contrast, tend to spend equal shares (about 40 percent) of In fact, the mix of replacement and discretionary projects
their budgets on replacements and on discretionary projects. changes dramatically with income, with lowest-quintile owners
focusing much more of their remodeling budgets (58 percent)
Since replacement projects often involve professional on replacements than highest-income owners (42 percent).
installation, an important impact of higher replacement While the split between professional and DIY installations
spending is that it has reduced the share of do-it-yourself is largely a function of a homeowner’s age, the DIY share of
expenditures. The DIY share of total home improvement spending among 35–64 year olds also declines considerably
spending trended down from about 25 percent in the late with household income. Top-quintile homeowners spend less
1990s to just 17 percent in 2013, primarily because of the than 13 percent of their outlays on DIY improvements, while all
aging population. Indeed, younger homeowners (under age other owners spend over 20 percent.
35) consistently devote much larger shares of their improve-
ment spending—about one in three dollars—to DIY projects, Given these large differences in improvement activity, it is not
while older homeowners (age 65 and over) spend much less. surprising that high-spending homeowners drive the upswings
In fact, the DIY share of expenditures among this older group and downswings in the remodeling market. For example, at
shrank from over 14 percent in 2005 to under 11 percent the height of the housing boom in 2005, homeowners that
in 2013 as the leading edge of the baby-boom generation were in the top 5 percent of spenders accounted for just over
moved into this age range. 60 percent of all improvement outlays. In 2003, their share had
fallen to about 52 percent as even high-spending homeowners
focused more on replacements than on high-end discretion-

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE REMODELING MARKET JOINT CENTER FOR HOUSING STUDIES OF HARVARD UNIVERSIT Y 7
ary projects. And while high-income owners making large Figure 7a
discretionary improvements will remain responsible for much
of spending growth, the flat or falling incomes of most home- Although Lower-Income Owners Are Less
owners will likely have a dampening effect on total outlays in Likely to Make Home Improvements…
the market. Share of Homeowners Aged 35–64 Reporting One or More Projects
in 2012–13 (Percent)

80
DECLINING HOUSEHOLD MOBILITY 70 65
68

Mobility rates, or the share of households changing residences 59

60 54
within a given year, have fallen steadily for several decades. A 51
50
number of factors have contributed to the decline, including
the aging of the population; the increase in two-earner house- 40
holds, making it both less critical and more difficult to relocate 30
for work; and the postponement of retirement, whether out of 20
choice or necessity.
10

The housing market crash further diminished mobility rates 0

Lowest Lower-Middle Middle Upper-Middle Highest
as falling house prices left millions of homeowners under-
Household Income Quintiles
water on their mortgages (owing more than the value of their
homes). Between 2007 and 2013, the share of recent homebuy- Notes: Quintiles are equal fifths of homeowners ranked by total household income. Tabulations use JCHS-adjusted weights.

ers shrank from 17 percent to 12 percent of owners, while the Source: JCHS tabulations of HUD, American Housing Survey.

share of total improvement spending by these homeowners

dropped from 23 percent to 15 percent. Although house prices
in much of the country have now recovered, historically low Figure 7b
interest rates provide an incentive for owners to remain in their
current homes when mortgage rates head up again. This mort- …Those That Do Spend a Much Larger Share
gage lock-in effect may thus continue to depress household of Their Incomes
mobility and future remodeling activity. Average Annual Spending Median Share of Income
(Dollars) (Percent)

In general, lower household mobility reduces remodeling 10,000 5.0

4.4
demand because households tend to spend more on improve- 9,000 4.5
ments both when they are putting their homes on the market 8,000 8,600 4.0
and during the first several years after purchase. According to 7,000 3.5
a 2014 Home Improvement Research Institute survey, fully half 6,000 3.0
of recent sellers (who had sold and purchased homes in the 5,000 2.1 2.1 5,400 2.5
preceding three years) undertook one or more improvement 4,000
4,000 2.1 1.5
2.0
projects to prepare their homes for sale, with their expendi- 3,000
2,900
3,300 1.5
tures averaging well over $8,000. 2,000 1.0
1,000 0.5

The post-purchase spending of recent buyers is also consid- 0 0.0

Lowest Lower- Middle Upper- Highest
erably higher than the spending of non-movers, even after Middle Middle
controlling for age and income. Recent buyers aged 35–64 in
Household Income Quintiles
the middle-income quintiles consistently spend significantly
more—about 33 percent—on improvements than otherwise ■ Average Annual Spending ■ Share of Income
similar non-movers (Figure 8). In particular, homeowners
that have recently moved devote much higher shares of their Notes: Estimates include only homeowners aged 35–64 undertaking improvement projects. Quintiles are equal fifths of
those homeowners ranked by total household income. Tabulations use JCHS-adjusted weights.
improvement dollars to DIY and discretionary projects. As a Source: JCHS tabulations of HUD, 2013 American Housing Survey.
result, falling household mobility rates are likely to put down-
ward pressure on the DIY and discretionary shares of improve-
ment spending.

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE REMODELING MARKET JOINT CENTER FOR HOUSING STUDIES OF HARVARD UNIVERSIT Y 8
GROWING DIVERSITY AMONG YOUNGER GENERATIONS
The millennial generation is already as large as the baby boom
and its numbers will continue to increase with the arrival of
new immigrants. Millennials are also much more racially
and ethnically diverse, with minority householders making up
nearly 40 percent of their ranks, compared with just 27 per-
cent of the baby boomers. Moreover, immigration will help to
expand the minority share of millennial households over the
coming decades.
This demographic shift is important for the home improve-
ment market because minority households traditionally have
lower incomes and wealth as well as far lower homeownership
rates than white households. Joint Center tabulations of the
American Housing Survey indicate that minorities have con-
sistently earned about 70 percent of white incomes since 1995
and their homeownership rates have held about 25 percentage
points below white rates. Minority homeowners also tend to be
younger, with a third under age 45 in 2013 compared with only
a quarter of white owners.
The impacts of increasing racial and ethnic diversity on the
level and mix of remodeling projects are due primarily to dif-
ferences in income and age between whites and minorities.
Minority owners historically spend about 25 percent less on
home improvements than white households, and Hispanic,
Asian, and multiracial owners devote more of their budgets
to DIY and discretionary projects. Even when looking just at
middle-aged and middle-income households, Hispanic, Asian,
and multiracial homeowners spend a larger share on DIY and
discretionary improvements than white homeowners.
MILLENNIALS’ SLOW START TO HOMEOWNERSHIP
Millennials are much less likely than previous generations to
have formed their own households, be married, or have chil-
dren by the age of 28. As a 2012 report from the Bipartisan
Policy Center notes, nearly half (47 percent) of millennials
between the ages of 18 and 28 were living with at least one
family member, compared with 43 percent of the gen-X and
39 percent of the baby-boom generations at similar ages. Just
21 percent of millennials were married by age 28, compared
with 29 percent of gen-Xers and half of baby boomers. Finally,
only 20 percent of millennials had children compared with 30
percent of baby boomers at the same ages.
Although these differences in part reflect long-term declines
in household formation, marriage, and childbearing rates, the
severity of the recent recession also played a key role. Having
come of age during the country’s worst downturn since the
Great Depression, millennials have faced significant chal-
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE REMODELING MARKET
Figure 8
Recent Movers Spend Considerably More
on Home Improvements
Average Annual Spending by Owners Aged 35–64
in the Middle Income Quintiles (Dollars)
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
2005 2007 2009 2011 2013
■ Recent Movers ■ Non-Movers
Notes: Recent movers bought their homes within the previous three calendar years. Estimates include owners in the
lower-middle, middle, and upper-middle income quintiles. Quintiles are equal fifths of homeowners aged 35–64 ranked by
total household income. Tabulations of 2013 data use JCHS-adjusted weights.
Source: JCHS tabulations of HUD, American Housing Surveys.
lenges to homeownership including high student loan debt,
limited employment opportunities, and housing affordability
pressures. At more than 64 percent in 2014, the rentership
rate for householders under age 35 still exceeds the 61 percent
average in the late 1990s, a period that might be considered
more typical for rental and owner markets.
Continuation of a high rentership rate has implications for
the home improvement market because per-unit spending on
rental housing is significantly lower than on owner-occupied
housing. According to Joint Center estimates, spending for
improvements to renter-occupied units averaged just $770
in 2013. By comparison, outlays for improvements to owner-
occupied single-family homes averaged $2,600. Even condo-
minium owners spent over $800 more on remodeling in 2013
than the typical rental unit owner.
If individuals under the age of 30 today formed households and
purchased homes at the same rates as their counterparts a
decade ago, improvement spending by this age group would
be nearly 11 percent higher (Figure 9). By this calculation,
depressed household formation and homeownership rates
among this age group shaved about three-quarters of a billion
dollars off total improvement spending on owner-occupied
units in 2013.
JOINT CENTER FOR HOUSING STUDIES OF HARVARD UNIVERSIT Y 9
Figure 9 Delayed marriage by millennials is also a concern for the
home remodeling market because, regardless of age, married
With Their Lower Household Formation homeowners spend considerably more on improvements than
and Homeownership Rates, Millennials Spend singles (Figure 10). The presence of children provides an even
Less than Expected on Home Improvements bigger lift to spending. Among homeowners between the ages
Actual and Expected Households, Homeowners, and Spending of 45 and 64, married couples (with or without children) spent
in 2013 for Persons Under Age 30
about the same on DIY projects as single homeowners, while
16 married owners with children spent significantly more on
14
13.6 13.7 discretionary projects.
12

10 THE OUTLOOK
7.5
8 6.8 Of the many household characteristics that are changing,
6 age and income are the most important to future remodeling
4
3.6 4.0 demand. Other major demographic shifts—including contin-
ued declines in household mobility, growth in the minority
2
share of households, and delayed household formation, mar-
0 riage, childbearing, and homebuying among the millennial
Households Homeowners Improvement Spending
(Millions) (Millions) (Billions of dollars) generation—also influence remodeling expenditures primarily
through their age and income effects.
■ Actual ■ Expected Assuming 2003 Rates

Notes: Expected figures assume 2003 household formation and homeownership rates for persons under age 30. Tabulations use
As the baby boomers move into their retirement years, their
JCHS-adjusted weights. improvement spending already outpaces that of the preceding
Sources: US Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March and Annual Social and Economic Supplements, Housing Vacancies
& Homeownership Rates, and Population Estimates; JCHS tabulations of HUD, American Housing Survey.
generation at similar ages, and it is expected that older home-
owners will continue to play a significant role in the remodel-
ing market for years to come. Meanwhile, members of the
equally large gen-X generation are now in the peak remodeling
Figure 10 age group and represent a growing segment of the market.
Finally, although off to a slow start, millennials have similar
Married Couples of All Ages Spend More
aspirations to homeownership as previous generations. As a
on Home Improvements than Single Homeowners
recent Fannie Mae National Housing Survey indicates, well
Average Annual Spending in 2013 (Dollars)
over 90 percent of young people today expect to buy homes in
5,000 the future, suggesting that members of the millennial genera-
4,500 tion will ultimately represent a substantial force in the home
4,000 improvement market.
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
Under 35 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 and Over

Age of Homeowner

■ Single ■ Married without Children ■ Married with Children

Note: Tabulations use JCHS-adjusted weights.

Source: JCHS tabulations of HUD, American Housing Survey.

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE REMODELING MARKET JOINT CENTER FOR HOUSING STUDIES OF HARVARD UNIVERSIT Y 10
3
INDUSTRY STRUCTURE
AND LABOR TRENDS
Remodeling contractors are
experiencing a strong rebound,
especially larger-scale firms that
could take advantage of their size
to gain market share during the
downturn. While the remodeling
industry is still highly fragmented,
specialty trade or replacement
contractors have been particularly
successful in achieving scale
economies and posting strong,
steady growth over the business
cycle. Meanwhile, industry
employment is still well below the
market peak and the construction
workforce is aging. As housing
and improvement demand revives,
it will be critical for the industry
to attract and develop a younger
workforce.
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE REMODELING MARKET
Since the market bottom, the number of general residential
remodeling firms with payrolls increased from less than 80,000
in 2011 to more than 83,000 in the second quarter of 2014,
with the pace of growth accelerating each year. The industry
has now recovered fully half of the payroll firms lost since the
market peak. Job growth has been even faster, up 20 percent
from the market low to an estimated 282,000 employees in
2014, restoring more than 60 percent of jobs lost during the
downturn (Figure 11).
With employment levels outpacing growth in the number of
firms, the average size of general remodelers has ticked up
from a decade low of 2.9 payroll employees in 2010 to 3.3 in
the second quarter of 2014. While still below the 2006 peak of
3.7 payroll employees, the firm size of general remodelers has
thus returned to the decade average.
Unlike other industries within the broader construction sec-
tor, remodeling remains highly fragmented with large shares
of self-employed contractors and small-scale, single-location
payroll businesses. According to the most recently available
economic census, the revenues of residential remodelers with
payrolls averaged $700,000 in 2007—just one-third the size
of a typical firm in the broader construction sector (including
both residential and nonresidential), one-fifth the size of build-
ing material dealers, and one-tenth the size of wood product
manufacturers. In fact, the average residential remodeling
contractor with a payroll operated on even a smaller scale than
the typical business serving the similarly fragmented accom-
modations and food services sector.
During the housing market downturn and Great Recession,
the remodeling industry became even more fragmented. The
share of general remodeling firms with fewer than five employ-
JOINT CENTER FOR HOUSING STUDIES OF HARVARD UNIVERSIT Y 11
ees increased from less than 81 percent in 2007 to 84 percent
Figure 11a
in 2010, where it remained in 2012 (the most recent year for
which data are available). Clearly contributing to this growing While the Number of General Remodeling
fragmentation, although difficult to quantify, is the increased Firms Is Growing Steadily…
presence of single-family home builders in the remodeling Number of Firms with Payrolls (Thousands)
market since the housing crash. According to member census-
90
es by the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), the
86.9
share of home builders that reported residential remodeling 86.4

as a secondary activity jumped from 44 percent in 2008 to 50 85

84.4

percent in 2010 and remained at this elevated level as the new 82.5 83.2
80.8
home construction market continued its own slow recovery. 79.9 80.3 79.6 79.9
80

PERFORMANCE OF LARGER-SCALE CONTRACTORS 75

The obstacles to achieving scale economies in the remodeling
industry are many: low barriers to entry, volatile business cycles, 70
and difficulty attracting capital, to name only a few. Firms that 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014:2
are able to overcome these hurdles, however, enjoy a long list
Note: Estimate for 2014:2 is preliminary.
of potential benefits, including stronger revenue growth, higher Source: US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages.
labor productivity, significantly lower failure rates, improved
buying power, more efficient management, and increased brand
recognition and trust. Indeed, the performance of larger-scale Figure 11b
remodeling contractors in recent years provides clear evidence
of the many advantages of scale and of the growing momentum …Employment Is Climbing Back Even More Quickly
toward full recovery from the worst downturn on record. Number of Employees at General Residential Remodeling Firms
(Thousands)
In 2013, firms on Qualified Remodeler magazine’s Top 500 list 320 310
reported median annual revenue growth of 10.8 percent, far 306

outstripping the 3.6 percent increase in total market spending 300

289
284
for professionally installed improvements that year. Indeed, 280
282

recent revenue growth at these larger companies was even 266

stronger than during the housing boom (Figure 12). Overall, 260 252
248
revenues of larger-scale contractors grew 5.2 percent annually 235 241
240
in 2010–13, compared with 4.6 percent annually in 2004–07.
And now that homeowners are making some of the discretion- 220
ary improvements that they deferred during the downturn,
revenue growth at design/build and full-service firms is out- 200
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
pacing that at lower-ticket replacement contractors. The scale
of the average job for companies in the Top 500 is also edging Note: The 2014 estimate is annualized using reported data through November.
back up to the pre-recession level of $17,000, rising 15 percent Source: US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics.

between 2011 and 2013 to $13,000.

The very largest firms consistently outperform the rest of the
remodelers on the Top 500 list by a considerable margin. In
2013, businesses ranked in the Top 100 reported average rev-
enues of $43 million, while firms ranked below that group had
average revenues of less than $4 million. The Top 100 remod-
elers also experienced significantly smaller losses during the
downturn and much stronger gains during the recovery than
other large contractors (Figure 13).
DEVELOPING SCALE AND EFFICIENCIES THROUGH SPECIALIZATION
Since the remodeling industry encompasses many diverse
business segments and market niches, there is no one-size-
fits-all approach to achieving scale. Remodeling companies
employ a wide variety of strategies that may involve partner-
ships with franchisors, investors, or nationally known manu-
facturing and retail brands.
Opportunities for scale and consolidation are especially likely
to exist in the specialty replacements segment, which includes

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE REMODELING MARKET JOINT CENTER FOR HOUSING STUDIES OF HARVARD UNIVERSIT Y 12
roofing, siding, windows, painting, cabinet refacing, bath liners replacement firms to develop greater efficiencies in their
and surrounds, and other kitchen and bath product replace- operations and obtain more favorable pricing on materials than
ments. Scheduling and installation of specialty replacement full-service remodeling firms.
projects tend to be much less labor-intensive than for full-
service remodeling projects, which means shorter job cycles Specialty firms have pursued scale by focusing heavily on lead
and potentially higher margins. This specialization also allows generation and sales and marketing, and by integrating with
manufacturers of their core product lines. Specialization and
vertical integration give companies substantial competitive
Figure 12 advantages and provide significant value, thus strengthening
their position for outside investment, mergers, or acquisitions.
Larger Contractors Have Seen
a Sharp Rebound in Revenues Indeed, specialty replacement contractors represent a much
Median Compound Annual Change in Revenue for Qualified Remodeler
greater share of the largest firms on the Qualified Remodeler
Top 500 Firms (Percent)
Top 500 list. Over the past decade, these firms have made up
8 6.6 45–50 percent of the top 100 contractors on that list each year,
5.5 5.2
6 4.3 4.9 4.2 4.6 compared with only 27–30 percent of companies ranking below
4 2.6 100. Given that specialty companies have already been more
2
0.1 effective than full-service companies in achieving scale, it is
0
likely that consolidation in this segment of the industry will
-2
increase moving forward.
-4
-4.6
-6
-6.3
-8
CHANGING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE WORKFORCE
-10
-9.4 Many construction workers have moved on to other indus-
-12
Design/Build Full-Service Replacement All Larger Firms tries or left the workforce entirely since the downturn. The
labor force in the broader construction industry—including all
■ Boom (2004–07) ■ Bust (2007–10) ■ Recovery (2010–13) employed or unemployed workers in construction and extrac-
tion occupations, whether self-employed or on a payroll—num-
Notes: Companies qualifying for the Qualified Remodeler Top 500 list typically generate annual revenues of $1 million or more.
Analysis includes firms reporting revenue in the beginning and ending years of each time period and ranking in the Top 400 in at bered 6.8 million in 2013 and represented 4.3 percent of the
least one of those years.
total US workforce. At the peak of the market in 2007, how-
Source: JCHS tabulations of Qualified Remodeler Top 500 lists.

Figure 13

Revenue Growth at the Top 100 Remodeling Contractors Has Been

Much More Stable than at Other Large Firms
Median Annual Change in Revenue for Qualified Remodeler Top 500 Firms (Percent)

20
13.9
15
8.4 10.2
8.9
10
6.7
5.5 4.8 5.6 5.4 5.3
4.7
5 2.8 2.8
2.0

0
-1.5
-5
-5.2 -5.6
-10
-12.4
-15
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

■ Top 100 ■ Rest of Top 500

Note: Companies qualifying for the Qualified Remodeler Top 500 list typically generate annual revenues of $1 million or more. Analysis includes firms reporting revenue in any two consecutive years and ranking in the Top 400 in at least one of those years.
Source: JCHS tabulations of Qualified Remodeler Top 500 lists.

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE REMODELING MARKET JOINT CENTER FOR HOUSING STUDIES OF HARVARD UNIVERSIT Y 13
ever, the construction labor force was 1.5 million stronger and fact that the construction sector has not traditionally attract-
accounted for a 5.5 percent share of the national workforce. ed women and more educated workers has likely contributed
to the aging of the labor force. From 2002 to 2013, the share
The demographic characteristics of those engaged in con- of the construction workforce aged 55 and over increased
struction and extraction occupations are strikingly different from under 9 percent to almost 16 percent, and the share of
from those of the national labor force (Figure 14). The larg- the workforce under age 35 declined from 44 percent to less
est disparity is in the share of women, who made up only 2.5 than 35 percent.
percent of the construction labor force in 2013, compared
with nearly half of the total workforce. Less than 31 percent The inability to attract young workers is detrimental to the
of construction workers had education beyond a high school future vitality of the industry. This concern relates not only to
diploma or GED, compared with nearly two-thirds of the workers that left construction for more stable sectors, but also
national workforce. And fully 28 percent of construction work- to the industry’s ability to find new skilled workers. Indeed, a
ers were foreign-born, compared with less than 17 percent 2013 survey by the Associated General Contractors of America
of the national labor force. While figures specifically for the indicated that fully 45 percent of member respondents consid-
residential remodeling labor force are not available, the profile ered the quantity and quality of local college, trade school, and
of workers is likely to be quite similar to that of construction apprenticeship programs to be poor or below average. Better
workers overall. preparation of younger workers is clearly necessary.

The large differences between the construction and national Immigrants remain a major source of labor for the construction
workforces are important as the industry looks to rebuild its industry, although their characteristics changed in meaningful
ranks. The general concern is that the construction sector ways during the industry boom and bust (Figure 15). While most
might have difficulties securing the labor force it needs if it foreign-born construction workers come from Mexico, their
cannot broaden its hiring to include more female, college- share of the immigrant labor force declined noticeably from 62
educated, and native-born workers, especially given the percent in 2002 to 57 percent in 2013. The drop in share of young
uncertainty surrounding the current immigration system. The immigrant workers was even more dramatic, falling from 55

Figure 14 Figure 15

The Construction Workforce Differs from The Characteristics of the Foreign-Born

the Overall Labor Force in Several Key Areas Construction Workforce Have Shifted Somewhat
Share of Labor Force in 2013 (Percent) Share of Foreign-Born Construction Labor Force (Percent)

70 63.8 70
62 62
57
60 60 55
51
47.3
50 50
37
40 40
30.9
27.9
30 30
16.6
20 20
14 15 16

10 10
2.5
0 0
Women More than Foreign-Born Born in Mexico Under Age 35 More than
High School High School
Education Education

■ All Industries ■ Construction ■ 2002 ■ 2007 ■ 2013

Notes: Data include all workers age 16 and over housed in non-group quarters and are employed or unemployed but available Notes: Data include all foreign-born workers age 16 and over housed in non-group quarters and are employed or unemployed but
for and seeking work. The construction labor force includes workers with construction and extraction occupations in the available for and seeking work. The construction labor force includes workers with construction and extraction occupations in the
construction industry. construction industry.
Source: JCHS tabulations of US Census Bureau, American Community Survey. Source: JCHS tabulations of the US Census Bureau, American Community Survey.

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE REMODELING MARKET JOINT CENTER FOR HOUSING STUDIES OF HARVARD UNIVERSIT Y 14
percent to only 37 percent over this period. Although the share of
immigrant construction workers having more than a high school
education inched up over the decade, it still stood at only 16 per-
cent in 2013—less than half the share of native-born workers.
Future immigration levels will certainly be an important factor in
whether the construction industry is able to meet its demand for
younger, less educated workers.
The massive decline in, and aging of, the construction industry
labor force following the Great Recession have raised alarms
about potential shortages of both skilled and unskilled work-
ers as the market recovers. Ultimately, the construction and
remodeling industries will need to attract new employees from
key segments of the labor force whose shares have either
declined or stagnated in recent years—in particular, young,
female, and immigrant workers.

THE OUTLOOK
Although the remodeling industry will almost certainly remain
more fragmented than the overall construction sector, oppor-
tunities for consolidation and economies of scale are especially
likely in the specialty replacement segment. Companies that
are focused on branding and customer satisfaction, develop-
ing and retaining skilled labor, and finding innovative uses of
technology will also gain competitive advantage.

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE REMODELING MARKET JOINT CENTER FOR HOUSING STUDIES OF HARVARD UNIVERSIT Y 15
4
METRO AND REGIONAL
REMODELING MARKETS
Remodeling activity is highly
concentrated within the nation’s
metropolitan areas, with
homeowners in those markets
accounting for four out of five
dollars of spending. Even so,
wide differences in household
incomes and house prices mean
that average improvement
expenditures, especially on larger
discretionary projects, vary sharply
across metro areas. Emerging
opportunities for spending
growth—driven by shifting
demographics and increasing
demand for energy-efficient
retrofits and rental property
improvements—also exhibit strong
geographic patterns.
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE REMODELING MARKET
REGIONAL SPENDING PATTERNS
Consistent with historical trends, home improvement spending
in 2013 was highest in the Northeast and West. In large mea-
sure, this strength reflects the fact that home values in the two
regions were more than 20 percent above the national average
while household incomes were at least 10 percent above.
In the Northeast, home improvement spending climbed 5.6
percent from 2009 to 2011 and another 10.8 percent from 2011
to 2013 in real terms (Figure 16). Average per homeowner
expenditures stand at $3,300, or nearly 90 percent of the pre-
recession peak. The larger and earlier remodeling rebound
in the Northeast reflects relatively moderate losses in home
values and jobs during the downturn.
In contrast, home prices and remodeling activity in the West
were much more volatile during the recent housing cycle.
When home prices soared in 2007, remodeling expenditures
also rose rapidly. But when the housing bubble burst and
plunging house prices eroded home equity, improvement
spending in the region fell sharply. Average spending per
homeowner continued to slide from 2011 to 2013, dipping 1.2
percent to $2,600 or more than 40 percent below the previ-
ous peak.
While lower than in the Northeast and West, average annual
improvement spending in the South and Midwest has been
more stable over time. Remodeling expenditures rose 4.4
percent in the South and edged up 0.5 percent in the Midwest
in 2011–13, marking the first period of growth since the crash.
These small increases lifted average spending per homeowner
to just over $2,300, or about 80 percent of pre-recession peaks.
JOINT CENTER FOR HOUSING STUDIES OF HARVARD UNIVERSIT Y 16
METRO MARKET PERFORMANCE ($5,000) and Boston ($4,900) were the top remodeling markets,
The home improvement recovery in the Northeast owes much several other metros in the Northeast—including New York
of its strength to the healthy house price recovery in some and Philadelphia—posted above-average spending. On the
metro areas. Metro area homeowners spend about 50 percent West Coast, San Francisco and San Jose reported the highest
more on average on remodeling than those living in non-metro
areas. Nationwide, metro area households contributed more
than four-fifths of improvement expenditures in 2013, but fully Figure 16
92 percent in the Northeast. By comparison, the metro shares
of spending were 84 percent in the West, 77 percent in the The Northeast Is Leading the Recovery
South, and 74 percent in the Midwest. in Home Improvement Spending
Average Annual Per-Owner Spending (2013 dollars)
Moreover, the top 50 remodeling markets in the country
5,000
accounted for nearly 60 percent of all home improvement
4,500
spending in 2013, and the top 15 for fully a third. New York
was the largest remodeling market, with over $12 billion in 4,000
expenditures. Washington, DC, Los Angeles, Chicago, and 3,500
Philadelphia were the next largest, with spending that ranged 3,000
from $4 billion to $7 billion.
2,500

Owners in the 50 largest markets spent $3,000 on average 2,000

on home improvements, although outlays in specific markets 1,500

ranged from less than $2,000 to nearly $5,000. Spending was 1,000
typically higher in metros located on the coasts, where higher 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013
property values and household incomes encouraged more ■ Northeast ■ West ■ Midwest ■ South
reinvestment in housing (Figure 17). While Washington, DC
Note: Tabulations of 2013 data use JCHS-adjusted weights.
Source: JCHS tabulations of HUD, American Housing Surveys.

Figure 17

Owners in Coastal Metro Areas Generally Spend More on Improvements

Average Per-Owner Spending in 2013

Seattle
Less than $2,500 (Down to $1,700)

$2,500–2,999 Portland

$3,000–3,499

$3,500 or More (Up to $5,000)

Minneapolis
Rochester Boston
Buffalo Hartford Providence
Milwaukee Detroit
New York
Chicago Cleveland
Pittsburgh
Philadelphia
Sacramento
Columbus Baltimore
San Francisco Indianapolis
Denver Cincinnati Washington, DC
San Jose
Kansas City St. Louis Louisville Richmond Virginia Beach
Las Vegas

Riverside Nashville
Los Angeles Charlotte
Oklahoma City Memphis
San Diego
Phoenix Atlanta
Birmingham
Tucson Dallas

Jacksonville
Austin New Orleans
Houston
San Antonio Orlando
Tampa

Source: Table A-5.

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE REMODELING MARKET JOINT CENTER FOR HOUSING STUDIES OF HARVARD UNIVERSIT Y 17
average spending of more than $3,700 per homeowner, fol-
lowed by San Diego and Los Angeles.
But not all high-spending metros are concentrated on the
coasts, nor have all coastal metros performed well. For exam-
ple, average homeowner spending levels in Denver ($4,000)
and Phoenix ($3,800) were especially strong. At the same time,
major metro areas in Florida—including Miami, Orlando, and
Jacksonville—registered below-average spending of $2,000
or less per homeowner. This weakness reflects the fact that
prices in these markets are still depressed and shares of dis-
tressed properties remain high.
The depth of the recent housing downturn is a key factor in
the hardest-hit markets, where prices fell 40 percent or more.
Homeowner improvement spending in these areas averaged
only $2,300 in 2013, compared with $3,200 in markets with less
dramatic price drops. The metros with the lowest expenditures
are Las Vegas, Orlando, Jacksonville, and Detroit, where per-
owner spending averaged less than $2,000. In addition to steep
house price declines, these markets experienced high unem-
ployment and a glut of foreclosed properties. Another contrib-
uting factor in Las Vegas is its newer housing stock.
METRO HOME VALUES AND INCOMES
Big-ticket home improvements typically drive remodeling
market growth. Indeed, large projects costing $50,000 or
more in 2013 made up half of all expenditures in Boston,
Figure 18
Metro Markets with Higher Levels of Spending Also Have Larger Shares of High-Cost Projects
Share of Spending on Improvements Costing $50,000 or More in 2013 (Percent)
Boston
Washington, DC
New York
Providence
San Jose
Cleveland
Kansas City
Jacksonville
Pittsburgh
St. Louis
0 5 10 15
■ Top Five Metros ■ Bottom Five Metros
Source: Table A-5.
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE REMODELING MARKET
nearly 45 percent in Washington, DC, and 44 percent in New
York City (Figure 18). To illustrate the role of large projects
in boosting expenditures, spending in the 10 markets with the
largest shares of major projects averaged $3,800 per home-
owner, compared with just $2,500 in the 10 markets with the
smallest shares of major projects. St. Louis, Pittsburgh, and
Jacksonville were among the second group, with less than 15
percent of spending originating from high-cost projects.
Differences in home values and household incomes explain
much of this variation. Large remodeling projects generally
make sense only for higher-value homes and for owners with
financial resources. For example, the average property value
in the top 10 markets ranked by large project spending was
$446,000—more than twice the $176,000 average in the 10
metros with the smallest shares of large project spending. In
addition, owner household incomes averaged $114,000 in the
top metros, compared with just $78,000 in the bottom group.
Housing affordability, measured by the ratio of incomes to home
values, also plays a role. On average, owners reinvest about
1.1 percent of their home values in improvements each year.
But households living in more affordable areas of the country
tend to spend more than that share. In 2013, improvement
spending as a share of home value was 1.8 percent or more
in several Midwestern and Rustbelt cities, including Oklahoma
City, Buffalo, Louisville, Kansas City, and Columbus. In less
affordable areas such as San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles,
and Miami, the reinvestment share was just 0.8 percent or less.
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
JOINT CENTER FOR HOUSING STUDIES OF HARVARD UNIVERSIT Y 18
The types of projects that homeowners undertake also differ by and insulation, while Minnesota provides low-interest loans for
metro area. Since discretionary improvements such as kitchen certain energy-efficient improvements.
and bath remodels, room additions, and outside attachments
are typically higher-end projects, they are more concentrated
in metros with higher home values. Indeed, discretionary proj- CONTRIBUTIONS OF YOUNGER AND OLDER HOUSEHOLDS
ects contributed 36 percent of total outlays in the 10 metro Housing affordability is a key factor in the geographic distribu-
markets with the highest home values, compared with just tion of remodeling activity. Younger households contribute larger
25 percent in the 10 markets with the lowest home values. shares of improvement spending in metros with lower house
For example, discretionary projects accounted for 40 percent prices, where they are more able to buy and invest in first homes.
or more of total spending in Boston, Los Angeles, and San Indeed, areas with the largest shares of spending by young
Francisco, but only 20 percent or less in Kansas City, Dallas, households are significantly more affordable, with prices aver-
and Oklahoma City. aging $210,000. By comparison, home values in markets where
young homeowners account for the smallest share of improve-
At the same time, energy-sensitive projects—including replace- ment spending average $400,000. For example, younger house-
ments of roofing, siding, windows and doors, insulation, and HVAC holds accounted for 12–14 percent of remodeling expenditures
systems—made up the largest share of expenditures in sev- in lower-cost metros such as Cincinnati, St. Louis, Philadelphia,
eral mid-sized markets such as Buffalo, Milwaukee, Providence, and Denver (Figure 19). Although younger households typically
Charlotte, and Nashville. Not surprisingly, per household spending have lower incomes, their spending in these top 10 markets still
on energy-sensitive improvements was highest in the Northeast, averaged $2,900 annually. The relatively large shares of younger
where the housing stock is older and the winters harsher. Several households already active in these home improvement markets
metros in the middle of the country—including Oklahoma City, suggest a strong base for future spending.
Milwaukee, Louisville, Denver, and Minneapolis—also posted
higher than average energy-sensitive spending. Incentives for Meanwhile, the markets with the largest shares of improve-
energy retrofits are likely a factor, with fully 39 of the 50 states ment spending by older adults are concentrated mainly in
providing subsidies in one form or another in 2014. For instance, the South Atlantic and Southwest regions. In Tucson, Miami,
Wisconsin offers rebates to help offset the costs of air-sealing Tampa, Virginia Beach, Las Vegas, and Phoenix, older house-

Figure 19

Metro Areas with High Shares of Spending by Younger or Older Households Are Typically More Affordable
Share of Improvement Spending in 2013 (Percent)

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
er

nix

ille

io
ati

is

ia

it

ty

is

pa

h
ns

am

a
nc

nc

ke
ke

so

ac
tro
ou

ph
lph

Ci

on
nv

eg
m
inn

oe
lea

nv
ide

ide

au
au

Be
c

Mi
De
.L

nt
as
De

Ta

sV
Tu
de

Ph

so
nc

Or

lw
lw

Me

nA
ov

ov
St

ns

ia
ila

La

ck
Ci

Mi
Mi

gin
Pr

Pr
w

Ka

Sa
Ph

Ja
Ne

Vir

■ Top 10 Metros with Largest Share of Spending by Owners Under Age 35

■ Top 10 Metros with Largest Share of Spending by Owners Age 65 and Over

Note: Analysis includes esitmates for 50 metro markets using data pooled from the 2011 and 2013 American Housing Surveys.
Source: JCHS tabulations of HUD, American Housing Surveys.

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE REMODELING MARKET JOINT CENTER FOR HOUSING STUDIES OF HARVARD UNIVERSIT Y 19
holds provided at least 27 percent of remodeling expenditures the rental stock. The Joint Center estimates that improve-
in 2013. Home values in these areas are also more moderate, ment expenditures in this market amounted to about $31
but because incomes tend to fall during the retirement years, billion as of 2013, or $54 billion if maintenance and repairs
per homeowner outlays in the top 10 areas for older household are included. This translates into average annual spending of
spending averaged only $2,700. about $770 on capital improvements per rental unit and about
$560 in maintenance and repairs. According to the National
Even so, households in this age group represent a large and Apartment Association’s Annual Survey of Operating Income
growing market for universal design features that allow aging and Expenses, per-unit capital spending on professionally
in place. Metro areas with high concentrations of households managed garden-style properties with 50 or more apartments
aged 55–64 should see increasing demand for accessibility is even higher at $900.
retrofits in the coming years. Riverside, Portland, New Orleans,
Birmingham, and Cleveland already report high shares of The NAA survey also indicates that capital investment in these
improvement spending by households in this age group. Other rental properties increased in 2013 in nearly all regions of the
areas with large shares of older residents included Baltimore, country. Similar to homeowner improvement spending, aver-
Richmond, St. Louis, and Philadelphia. age annual rental expenditures in the Northeast and Pacific
regions climbed sharply during the housing boom and then
The need for accessibility improvements will be particularly fell sharply during the bust, and are now well below the pre-
acute in the Midwest and Northeast, where less than one-third recession peaks (Figure 20). In contrast, spending on rental
of homes have no-step entries versus nearly half of homes in properties in the interior regions has already surpassed previ-
the South and West. In addition, fully 43 percent of homes in ous highs. The only region where rental spending appears to
the Northeast and 28 percent in the Midwest lack a bedroom have leveled off is the Southeast, where homeowner spending
and full bath on the first floor, compared with 19 percent in the has also struggled to revive.
West and 16 percent in the South.
Among professionally managed properties, top markets for
rental improvement spending include San Francisco, Los
RENEWAL OF THE RENTAL STOCK Angeles, Washington, DC, Minneapolis, and Denver, where
In the wake of the housing market crash, soaring demand annual expenditures averaged $1,200 or more per unit over
for rental units has fueled a strong recovery in spending on 2012–13. Compared with the previous two-year period, rental

Figure 20

While Recovering Across the Nation, Rental Improvement Outlays

in Formerly High–Spending Regions Still Lag Previous Peaks
Average Per-Unit Capital Expenditures for Professionally Managed Garden-Style Properties (2013 dollars)

1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
Mountain/ South North Pacific Northeast Southeast
South Midwest Central Midwest

■ 2007 ■ 2008 ■ 2009 ■ 2010 ■ 2011 ■ 2012 ■ 2013

Note: See Table W-8 for information about survey coverage and definitions.
Source: JCHS tabulations of National Apartment Association, Surveys of Operating Income and Expenses in Rental Apartment Communities.

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE REMODELING MARKET JOINT CENTER FOR HOUSING STUDIES OF HARVARD UNIVERSIT Y 20
spending rose rapidly in several metros, including certain dis-
tressed markets (such as Detroit and Phoenix) as well as areas
where rents were already high or rising (San Francisco, Dallas,
Denver, Austin, and Washington, DC).
Metros with the lowest expenditures on apartment properties
include St. Louis, San Antonio, Sacramento, and Las Vegas,
averaging less than $700 per unit. In most of these areas, both
rents and operating incomes were lower than average, leav-
ing few resources available for reinvestment. In some cases,
the rental stock is newer and thus in less need of repair. In
other cases, the markets were especially hard hit by the Great
Recession. The average apartment turnover rate in these met-
ros is also higher, perhaps indicating greater difficulty main-
taining profitability in these markets.
THE OUTLOOK
As house prices and incomes continue to recover, homeowner
improvement spending should pick up steam, particularly in
the West. Given their higher mobility rates and higher incomes,
homeowners in markets such as San Francisco, Sacramento,
Las Vegas, and San Jose are likely to boost their spending on
improvements. In other areas such as Phoenix and Denver,
however, spending growth is expected to moderate from its
recent strong pace. Meanwhile, homeowner improvement
spending in many metros of the Northeast should remain
strong, although growth in other regions will gradually close
some of the gap in performance.
In the Midwest and South, homeowner spending growth should
be more moderate but also more stable. With significant
shares of their owner-occupied housing stocks built before
the 1960s, Detroit, Chicago, Cincinnati, and St. Louis should
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE REMODELING MARKET
all see a pickup in improvement expenditures. In the South
Atlantic region, remodeling activity in Florida metros such as
Jacksonville and Orlando is also expected to revive as home
values recover. However, the relatively new owner-occupied
stock in this region will limit spending gains in these and simi-
lar areas. Other Southern metros where improvement spend-
ing is likely to increase include Houston and Richmond, where
recent activity has been lower than expected.
On the rental property side, remodeling expenditures are expect-
ed to remain strong, although growth could moderate in a hand-
ful of metro areas if new construction results in excess supply.
Overall, though, this market is likely to grow as rental demand
and rents continue to rise, especially in the Northeast and West.
At the same time, affordability concerns in several major markets
are likely to shift demand toward middle-market rentals. These
properties may in turn see stronger investment relative to the
higher-end, professionally managed stock.
Single-family rentals are also a potential growth market for
remodelers. From 2006 to 2013, about 3.6 million single-family
homes were added on net to the pool of units either rented or
for rent. The American Community Survey indicates that met-
ros where at least 100,000 single-family homes were converted
to rentals include Phoenix, Los Angeles, and Atlanta. Given
the larger average size of single-family homes, as well as the
higher turnover rates and maintenance needs of rentals, prop-
erty owners will have to make significant investments to repair
and update this stock.
JOINT CENTER FOR HOUSING STUDIES OF HARVARD UNIVERSIT Y 21
5
OPPORTUNITIES FOR GROWTH
With the home improvement
market nearing full recovery,
spending growth is likely to
moderate. Indeed, given the
demographic and economic
obstacles facing the industry,
generating even modest increases
in the near term could be a
challenge. Fortunately, several
emerging market niches will
give momentum to growth over
the longer run even as spending
in some traditional segments
stabilizes.
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE REMODELING MARKET
During the housing boom, rapidly appreciating home values
and the resulting increase in home equity, coupled with very
accommodating lending standards, helped to fuel the upper-
end improvement market. In 2005, homeowners that were in
the top 1 percent of spenders accounted for more than one-
third of total spending. Today, though, several socioeconomic
and demographic changes are shifting consumer demand to
smaller-scale and more targeted projects. As a result, more
than 57 percent of homeowners reported spending on home
improvements in 2012–13 (a slightly higher share than during
the 2002–07 upturn), while the top 1 percent contributed less
than one-quarter of the total.
Chief among the trends driving this shift in the remodeling
market are the delayed entrance of the large millennial gener-
ation into homeownership; the aging of the baby boomers into
their retirement years; the ongoing decline in the US house-
hold mobility rate; and increasing environmental awareness
and technological sophistication, particularly among younger
households. With these changes come opportunities for stron-
ger growth in spending in several key areas: improvements to
the rental stock, retrofits of existing homes to improve acces-
sibility, and system upgrades that are environmentally sustain-
able. The DIY market is also poised for a rebound.
REINVESTING IN THE RENTAL STOCK
Since the housing downturn, the share of US households that
rent rather than own their homes has increased. Indeed, the
national rentership rate for households under age 35 stood
at 64 percent in 2014, its highest level in three decades.
For many of these younger households, the decision to rent
reflects lifestyle preferences for more urban locations, hous-
JOINT CENTER FOR HOUSING STUDIES OF HARVARD UNIVERSIT Y 22
ing affordability issues given their generally lower incomes
and higher debt, and greater awareness of the financial risks
involved in homeownership.
While rental demand has thus increased, investment in the
rental stock has not kept pace. Production was so depressed
during the housing downturn that the median age of the
rental stock rose to 41 years in 2013, up from 35 years in
2005. However, capital investment in the aging rental stock
is finally on the rebound. The National Apartment Association
reports that per-unit spending on professionally managed
rental properties with 50 or more units jumped by more
than 40 percent between 2010 and 2013. However, some of
this increase may have been compensating for a decline in
maintenance and repair spending, thus offsetting some of
the overall growth in spending (Figure 21). On net, then, the
recent growth in total spending on this portion of the rental
stock was less than 20 percent.
But even this lower figure may overstate the level of rental
housing investment because the estimates cover only a small
portion of the stock. In particular, single-family homes make
up around a third of the rental inventory, and multifamily
buildings with two to four units another 17 percent. And while
single-family and small multifamily rentals are more spacious
on average than units in larger multifamily properties, their
rents per square foot tend to be somewhat lower and thus pro-
vide less gross revenue for capital expenditures. The owners
of these types of properties are also likely to be individuals or
couples with limited holdings and little experience managing
rental portfolios.
Moreover, the number of single-family rentals has increased
significantly in recent years as a result of the housing market
crash. According to Joint Center estimates, 3.6 million single-
family homes were added on net to the rental stock from 2006
to 2013, largely as a result of the foreclosure crisis. These
homes were typically under-maintained not only during the
lengthy foreclosure process, but also beginning when their
owners realized that they were in financial trouble. When some
of these distressed properties are eventually converted back
to homeownership, another round of improvement spending is
likely to ensue.
Spending on rental improvements and maintenance is lower
on average than on owner-occupied homes. The Joint Center
estimates that per-unit improvement and maintenance spend-
ing on multifamily rental units averages $1,300 annually.
By comparison, outlays average $2,200 for owner-occupied
multifamily units (condos and co-ops), and almost $3,300 for
owner-occupied single-family homes.
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE REMODELING MARKET
Figure 21
Capital Spending on Apartment Units Is on the Rise
Per-Unit Spending for Professionally Managed Garden-Style
Rental Properties (2013 dollars)
1,000
900
850
800
760
630
600
500 510
460
430
400
200
0
2010 2011 2012 2013
■ Repair and Maintenance ■ Capital Expenditures
Note: Sample includes garden-style rental properties with 50 or more units and stabilized operations.
Source: Table W-8.
The composition of improvement spending is also very dif-
ferent in the rental and owner markets. Almost 60 percent of
multifamily rental expenditures are for replacement projects,
but less than 50 percent of homeowner expenditures fall into
this category. Within replacements, exterior projects account
for 27 percent of multifamily rental capital expenditures, sys-
tems replacements and upgrades for 20 percent, and flooring,
carpeting, and other interior replacements for 12 percent—all
above the shares of spending for comparable projects in owner-
occupied homes. In contrast, kitchen and bath projects make up
a mere 10 percent of capital improvements to the multifamily
rental stock, while projects such as pools, playgrounds, club-
houses/common areas, laundry rooms, parking and garages,
and landscaping account for the remaining 31 percent.
ACCOMMODATING AN AGING POPULATION
While the millennial generation will drive much of the growth in
home improvement spending in the coming decades, the baby
boomers currently play a significant role in the market. In 2010,
34.3 million baby-boom homeowners were in the high-spend-
ing age group of 45–64. According to Joint Center estimates,
34.1 million owners from this generation will be aged 55–74 in
2020 and 29.0 million will be aged 65–84 in 2030.
With the aging of the US population and the traditionally lower
mobility rates of older owners, the concern is that overall
improvement spending may suffer. But even though spending
does decline as homeowners age, lower household mobil-
JOINT CENTER FOR HOUSING STUDIES OF HARVARD UNIVERSIT Y 23
ity within a given age range does not necessarily imply lower Many owners in their mid-50s to mid-60s begin to consider
spending. In fact, improvement spending in 2013 was actually their post-retirement housing needs. Given that much of the
modestly higher among owners aged 55–64 who had lived in US housing stock lacks basic accessibility features, how-
their current homes for 20 years or more compared to that of ever, many of these older households will have to modify their
same-aged owners with shorter tenure (Figure 22). homes to age safely in place. While over three-quarters of
homes owned by households aged 55 and over have a bedroom
and full bath on the entry level, only about 60 percent of these
homes have no steps between rooms, and less than half have
Figure 22
a no-step entry (Figure 23). In total, less than a quarter of
For Older Owners, Improvement Expenditures homes occupied by older owners have all of these features.
Decline with Age But Not with Length of Tenure Other accessibility features needed by those with more limited
Average Annual Per-Owner Spending in 2013 (Dollars) mobility are even less common. For example, only one in ten
homes occupied by older owners have extra-wide hallways and
3,500
doors, while less than 1 percent of older homeowners living in
3,000 multi-story units have an in-home elevator.
2,500
Home builders are responding to the emerging need for more
2,000 accessible housing, and newly constructed homes could dra-
1,500 matically reduce the gap between demand and supply. The
problem, however, is the mismatch between where the aging
1,000
population lives and where more accessible homes are being
500 built. Households aged 55 and over are spread proportion-
0 ately across the country, with a slightly higher concentration
55 to 64 65 to 74 75 and Over in slower-growing Frostbelt locations. In fact, the states with
Age of Homeowner the largest shares of older households in 2013 were Delaware,
Maine, Michigan, Montana, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and West
Years in Home: ■ Under 10 ■ 10 to 19 ■ 20 and Over Virginia (in addition to Florida, Hawaii, and New Mexico).
Meanwhile, almost three-quarters of new homes built in the
Note: Tabulations use JCHS-adjusted weights.
last decade are located in the South and West.
Source: JCHS tabulations of HUD, American Housing Survey.

Figure 23

Many of the Homes Owned by Older Households Lack the Accessibility Features that Enable Aging in Place
Share of Units Owned by Households Aged 55 and Over with Accessibility Feature in 2011 (Percent)

90
76.5
80
70
61.3
60
44.9
50 42.1
40 32.2
30
20
10.2
10
0.5
0
Bedroom and No Steps No Step Wheelchair Wheelchair Extra-Wide In-Home
Full Bath on Between Entry Into Accessible Accessible Hallways and Elevator
Entry Level Rooms Home Bathroom Kitchen Doors

Note: In-unit elevators are computed for multi-story homes only.

Source: JCHS tabulations of HUD, American Housing Survey.

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE REMODELING MARKET JOINT CENTER FOR HOUSING STUDIES OF HARVARD UNIVERSIT Y 24
 Figure 24

Projects that Boost Energy Efficiency Remain the Most Popular Sustainable Improvements
Share of Contractors Reporting Installation of Environmentally Sustainable Projects (Percent)

Energy Efficiency 84

Water Efficiency/Conservation 56

Healthy Home/Indoor Air Quality 54

Use of Recycled Products/Reuse of Existing Materials 49

Use of Rapidly Renewable Materials 34

Home Automation 28

Renewable Energy 14

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Notes: Respondents were asked to select sustainable remodeling projects that their companies had installed over the previous year. Estimates are averages for the 2013:3, 2014:1, and 2014:3 surveys.
Source: JCHS/Farnsworth Group Survey on Environmental Sustainability Trends in Remodeling.

As a result, many older households in slower-growing regions related to water efficiency, home health, and use of recycled
of the country will likely have to retrofit their existing homes products are the next most popular subcategories, with about
with accessibility features rather than move to new homes. The half of contractors indicating that they had recently installed
Joint Center has estimated that even if every new home pro- such improvements. Projects related to home automation and
jected to be built over the coming decade in the Northeast and renewable energy are much less commonly installed by the
Midwest had basic accessibility features, the shortfall between typical full-service remodeler, in part because specialty firms
the supply of and demand for these units would still be almost have sprung up to serve these markets.
a million homes.
Of the households reporting home improvement spending
in 2012 or 2013 in the American Housing Survey, 20 percent
PROMOTING ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY indicated that at least one of their projects was for energy
With the growing popularity of energy efficiency retrofits over the efficiency purposes. A broad cross-section of homeowners has
past three decades, home improvement projects that promote made energy efficiency a priority. For example, lower-income
environmental sustainability have accounted for a growing share owners were almost as likely as those with higher incomes
of spending. Sustainable projects are defined as those motivated to pursue such improvements. Similarly, younger owners and
by one or more of the following objectives: energy efficiency; recent homebuyers (who might be expected to have a long
water efficiency and conservation; healthy home/indoor air list of competing home improvement priorities) were almost
quality; use of recycled building products; use of rapidly renew- as likely as other households to undertake energy efficiency
able materials; home automation related to other sustainability upgrades.
goals; and utilization of renewable energy sources.
Interest in most sustainable home improvement categories
Recent surveys conducted by the Joint Center and the seems to be on the upswing. Although recent increases in
Farnsworth Group found that sustainable home improvement domestic energy production and falling costs may reduce
projects generate about 30 percent of revenue at full-service some of the momentum behind energy efficiency investments,
remodeling firms. Moreover, more than four out of five con- other areas remain strong. In particular, spending on projects
tractors report that sustainable projects account for at least related to healthy homes and indoor air quality is increasing.
10 percent of their revenue. Energy efficiency projects are far According to a 2014 Joint Center/Farnsworth Group survey,
and away the most common subcategory, with 84 percent of almost a quarter of owner respondents indicated some degree
respondents indicating that they had installed these types of of concern about the health impacts of their homes, and one
improvements during the previous year (Figure 24). Projects in 20 expressed major or moderate concern over whether their

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE REMODELING MARKET JOINT CENTER FOR HOUSING STUDIES OF HARVARD UNIVERSIT Y 25
homes negatively affected the health of household members.
Renters are even more apprehensive about conditions, with
over a third conveying some level of concern and one in six
indicating that healthy home issues are a problem.
Figure 25
The DIY Market Has Finally Begun to Recover
Do-It-Yourself Improvement Expenditures (Billions of dollars)

60
REBOUND IN DO-IT-YOURSELF ACTIVITY 49
50
From 1995 to 2005, the DIY share of home improvement 45
36 39
spending averaged around 25 percent. The DIY share of home 40
32 34
improvement product purchases is much higher, however, 29
because costs for DIY projects include only materials while 30 25
24
costs for professionally installed projects also include labor, 20
20

profit, and overhead. A 25 percent share of spending on DIY

projects could thus imply that upwards of 45 percent of remod-
eling materials purchases are installed on a DIY basis.
Since 2005, though, the DIY share of home improvement spend-
ing has been on the decline, falling to 17 percent in 2013. The
DIY share of home improvement activity is associated with the
types of projects undertaken, and key homeowner characteris-
tics such as age, income, household composition, and racial and
ethnic mix. All of these factors now point to a turnaround in DIY
activity in the coming years.
The recent increase in spending on discretionary home improve-
ment projects is the clearest sign of an imminent rebound.
About a quarter of spending on discretionary projects (kitchens,
baths, and other additions and alterations) is DIY—significantly
higher than the 14 percent share of spending on replacement
projects. As the discretionary share of spending returns to more
traditional levels, the DIY share should thus follow suit.
The potential for additional growth in discretionary home
improvement activity is largely due to changing demographic
characteristics—specifically, the impending move of the young,
diverse millennial generation into the home improvement mar-
ket. Younger homeowners devote a larger share of their spend-
ing to DIY projects. Indeed, owners under age 35 spent a third
of their budgets on DIY projects in 2013, while owners aged 65
and over spent just 11 percent. Income levels also affect the
DIY share. More than 20 percent of spending by non-elderly
households in the lowest income quintile was on DIY projects,
compared with less than 13 percent by those in the highest
income quintile.
With the exception of blacks, most racial and ethnic minorities
also devote a larger share of their home improvement spend-
10
0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013
Note: Tabulations of 2013 data use JCHS-adjusted weights.
Source: JCHS tabulations of HUD, American Housing Survey.
ing to DIY projects than whites. In addition, married-couple
owners spend a slightly larger share of their improvement dol-
lars on DIY projects than do single-person households.
Even though the DIY share did not increase in 2013, overall
market growth pushed total DIY spending up from $32.0 billion
in 2011 to $33.5 billion. This was the first DIY spending increase
since the market peaked in 2007 (Figure 25). The movement
of the large millennial generation into the housing market and
ultimately into homeownership should propel even stronger
growth in DIY spending moving forward. With their moderate
incomes and growing racial/ethnic diversity, these households
have the key characteristics associated with higher shares of
DIY activity.
Beyond the DIY market, millennials are key to the remodeling
outlook. With the baby boomers still active in the market and
the gen-Xers in their prime home improvement years, spend-
ing on remodeling has a solid base on which to build. The mil-
lennials’ increasing presence in the rental market has already
helped to boost improvement spending in that segment, and
it is only a matter of time before this generation becomes
more active in the owner-occupied housing market. As that
transition occurs, the millennial generation will support strong
growth in home improvement spending for decades to come.

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE REMODELING MARKET JOINT CENTER FOR HOUSING STUDIES OF HARVARD UNIVERSIT Y 26
6
APPENDIX TABLES

Table A-1 ������������������������Homeowner Improvement Expenditures: 2013

Table A-2 ������������������������Professional and Do-It-Yourself Home Improvement Expenditures: 2013

Table A-3 ������������������������Improvement Expenditures by Homeowner Characteristics: 2013

Table A-4 ������������������������Professional and Do-It-Yourself Improvement Expenditures by Homeowner Characteristics: 2013

Table A-5 ������������������������Metropolitan Trends in Home Improvement and Repair Spending: 2013

The following Web tables provide historical data on improvement spending and additional homeowner detail such as income
quintiles, nativity, metro status, and recent mover status. Visit the Joint Center’s website at www.jchs.harvard.edu.

Table W-1 �����������������������Homeowner Improvement Expenditures: 1995–2013

Table W-2 �����������������������Professional Home Improvement Expenditures: 1995–2013

Table W-3 �����������������������Do-It-Yourself Home Improvement Expenditures: 1995–2013

Table W-4 �����������������������Improvement Expenditures by Homeowner Characteristics: 1995-2013

Table W-5 �����������������������Professional Improvement Expenditures by Homeowner Characteristics: 1995–2013

Table W-6 �����������������������Do-It-Yourself Improvement Expenditures by Homeowner Characteristics: 1995–2013

Table W-7 �����������������������Homeowner Maintenance and Repair Expenditures: 1995–2013

Table W-8 �����������������������Trends in Rental Apartment Property Spending: 2007-2013

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE REMODELING MARKET JOINT CENTER FOR HOUSING STUDIES OF HARVARD UNIVERSIT Y 27
 Table A-1

Homeowner Improvement Expenditures: 2013

Homeowners Reporting Projects Average Expenditure Total Expenditures

(000s) ($) (Millions of $)
DISCRETIONARY 5,138 11,318 58,147
Kitchen Remodels 1,826 9,459 17,273
Minor 1,059 3,207 3,398
Major 767 18,097 13,876

Bath Remodels 2,459 4,844 11,910

Minor 1,348 1,558 2,101
Major 1,111 8,829 9,809

Room Additions and Alterations 1,765 13,314 23,496

Kitchen Addition 28 34,699 976
Bath 342 8,294 2,834
Created finished bathroom from unfinished space 111 7,325 812
Added bathroom onto home 90 12,822 1,151
Bathroom created through structural changes 141 6,173 871
Bedroom 550 14,506 7,984
Created finished bedroom from unfinished space 192 6,758 1,296
Added bedroom onto home 132 39,536 5,233
Bedroom created through structural changes 226 6,429 1,455
Other 1,210 9,673 11,702
Created finished recreation room from unfinished space 199 9,661 1,921
Created other finished inside room from unfinished space 380 7,146 2,713
Added other inside room onto home 175 23,306 4,083
Other room created through structural changes 456 6,544 2,985
Outside Attachments 730 7,489 5,468
Porch/Deck 633 5,867 3,714
Added porch onto home 290 5,594 1,625
Added deck onto home 343 6,099 2,089
Garage/Carport 121 14,439 1,754
Added attached garage onto home 61 23,606 1,450
Added carport onto home 60 5,069 305

REPLACEMENT 18,751 4,889 91,681

Systems and Equipment Additions & Replacements 12,671 2,375 30,097
Internal water pipes 1,461 1,148 1,677
Plumbing fixtures 4,038 933 3,769
Electrical wiring, fuse boxes or breaker switches 2,220 1,228 2,726
HVAC 4,445 3,782 16,808
Central air conditioning 2,215 4,187 9,275
Built-in heating equipment 2,230 3,378 7,533
Appliances/Major Equipment 8,597 595 5,117
Water heater 3,245 794 2,577
Built-in dishwasher 2,360 611 1,443
Garbage disposal 1,636 183 299
Security system 1,356 589 799
Exterior Additions & Replacements 7,127 5,467 38,962
Roofing 3,628 6,485 23,525
Siding 1,055 4,594 4,846
Windows or doors 3,894 2,720 10,591
Interior Additions & Replacements 7,705 2,936 22,622
Insulation 1,625 1,187 1,929
Flooring/Paneling/Ceiling 8,433 2,021 17,046
Wall-to-wall carpeting 2,215 2,086 4,620
Other flooring such as wood, tile, marble, or vinyl 4,346 2,297 9,980
Paneling or ceiling tiles 1,872 1,306 2,445
Other major improvements inside home 832 4,386 3,647

OTHER 6,510 6,475 42,156

Disaster Repairs 1,138 13,896 15,819
Other Property Additions & Replacements 7,125 3,697 26,336
Other outside structure 217 6,071 1,315
Septic tank 176 3,328 585
Driveways or walkways 1,840 2,976 5,475
Fencing or walls 1,880 1,915 3,600
Patio, terrace, or detached deck 1,293 3,928 5,081
Swimming pool, tennis court, or other recreational structure 372 8,289 3,087
Shed, detached garage, or other building 909 5,892 5,356
Other major improvements or repairs to lot or yard 438 4,197 1,838
Total 21,736 8,833 191,984
Notes: Homeowner numbers do not add to total because respondents may report projects in more than one category. Major remodels are defined as professional home improvements of more than $10,000 for kitchen projects and
more than $5,000 for bath projects, and DIY improvements of more than $4,000 for kitchen projects and $2,000 for bath projects. Tabulations use JCHS-adjusted weights. For more information about the re-weighting methodology,
see www.jchs.harvard.edu/research/improving-americas-housing.
Source: JCHS tabulations of HUD, American Housing Survey.

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE REMODELING MARKET JOINT CENTER FOR HOUSING STUDIES OF HARVARD UNIVERSIT Y 28
 Table A-2

Professional and Do-It-Yourself Home Improvement Expenditures: 2013

Professional Do-It-Yourself

Homeowners Total Homeowners Average Total

Reporting Projects Average Expenditure Expenditures Reporting Projects Expenditure Expenditures
(000s) ($) (Millions of $) (000s) ($) (Millions of $)
DISCRETIONARY 3,210 13,816 44,353 2,836 4,864 13,794
Kitchen Remodels 1,068 28,401 12,432 758 13,051 4,841
Minor 670 4,109 2,752 390 1,656 645
Major 398 24,292 9,680 368 11,394 4,196

Bath Remodels 1,343 6,650 8,933 1,116 2,668 2,977

Minor 715 2,217 1,584 633 815 516
Major 629 11,690 7,349 482 5,101 2,460

Room Additions and Alterations 908 20,231 18,379 886 5,775 5,118
Kitchen 21 41,269 881 7 14,070 96
Bath 168 13,254 2,229 153 3,941 605
Bedroom 246 25,981 6,398 252 6,300 1,586
Other 548 16,183 8,871 556 5,092 2,831

Outside Attachments 428 10,773 4,609 302 2,841 859

Porch/Deck 353 8,332 2,945 272 2,830 769
Garage/Carport 86 19,427 1,664 35 2,595 90

REPLACEMENT 14,026 5,601 78,557 7,764 1,690 13,124

Systems and Equipment Additions & Replacements 8,853 2,903 25,702 5,116 859 4,395
Internal Water Pipes 889 1,598 1,421 572 448 256
Plumbing Fixtures 2,074 1,292 2,681 1,964 554 1,088
Electrical System 1,464 1,540 2,256 756 622 470
HVAC 3,033 5,131 15,560 459 2,722 1,248
Appliances/Major Equipment 4,579 827 3,785 2,884 462 1,332

Exterior Additions & Replacements 5,386 6,454 34,760 1,987 2,115 4,202
Roofing 3,059 7,099 21,713 569 3,183 1,812
Siding 779 5,665 4,412 276 1,571 433
Windows/Doors 2,505 3,448 8,635 1,390 1,408 1,957

Interior Additions & Replacements 5,074 3,566 18,095 3,200 1,415 4,527
Insulation 997 1,587 1,582 628 552 347
Flooring/Paneling/Ceiling 4,061 3,330 13,524 2,722 1,294 3,522
Other Interior 602 4,962 2,989 252 2,609 658

OTHER 4,322 8,237 35,596 2,531 2,592 6,559

Disaster Repairs 950 14,259 13,549 188 12,061 2,271

Other Property Additions & Replacements 3,508 6,285 22,048 2,378 1,804 4,289

Total 16,319 9,713 158,506 9,783 3,422 33,478

Notes: Homeowner numbers do not add to total because respondents may report projects in more than one category. Major remodels are defined as professional home improvements of more than $10,000 for kitchen projects and more than $5,000
for bath projects, and DIY improvements of more than $4,000 for kitchen projects and $2,000 for bath projects. Job categories are aggregations of the detailed projects reported in the AHS (see Table A-1). Tabulations use JCHS-adjusted weights. For
more information about the re-weighting methodology, see www.jchs.harvard.edu/research/improving-americas-housing.
Source: JCHS tabulations of HUD, American Housing Survey.

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE REMODELING MARKET JOINT CENTER FOR HOUSING STUDIES OF HARVARD UNIVERSIT Y 29
 Table A-3

Improvement Expenditures by Homeowner Characteristics: 2013

Number of Homeowners Reporting Average Total

Homeowners Projects Expenditure Expenditures
(000s) (000s) ($) (Millions of $)
Income
Under $40,000 24,095 5,967 5,590 33,356
$40,000–79,999 22,360 6,410 6,966 44,654
$80,000–119,999 13,811 4,320 9,314 40,232
$120,000 and Over 14,312 4,818 15,017 72,358

Home Value
Under $100,000 19,627 5,047 4,814 24,297
$100,000–149,999 12,894 3,786 6,022 22,802
$150,000–199,999 11,358 3,414 7,191 24,551
$200,000–249,999 7,621 2,292 8,063 18,475
$250,000–399,999 13,231 3,903 11,511 44,925
$400,000 and Over 10,944 3,294 17,283 56,933

Age of Householder
Under 35 8,907 2,510 6,962 17,473
35–44 12,161 3,578 10,131 36,243
45–54 16,327 4,829 9,933 47,962
55–64 16,635 4,959 9,162 45,441
65 and Over 21,646 5,861 7,655 44,865

Generation
Millennial (Born 1985-2004) 2,877 772 6,355 4,905
Trailing Gen-X (Born 1975-84) 10,237 2,990 8,600 25,709
Leading Gen-X (Born 1965-74) 13,852 4,078 9,849 40,167
Trailing Baby Boom (Born 1955-64) 17,298 5,141 9,949 51,148
Leading Baby Boom (Born 1945-54) 15,446 4,575 8,877 40,614
Pre-Baby Boom (Born before 1945) 15,965 4,180 7,043 29,440

Race/Ethnicity
White 58,826 17,191 9,188 157,948
Black 6,355 1,758 6,375 11,208
Hispanic 6,738 1,787 7,781 13,903
Asian 2,593 655 9,734 6,379
Multirace 1,163 345 7,392 2,547

Spending Level
Under $2,500 9,309 9,309 838 7,797
$2,500–4,999 3,345 3,345 3,538 11,835
$5,000–9,999 3,979 3,979 6,866 27,319
$10,000–19,999 2,853 2,853 13,537 38,618
$20,000–34,999 1,240 1,240 26,006 32,248
$35,000–49,999 445 445 41,070 18,270
$50,000 and Over 565 565 98,961 55,897
No Projects 53,940

Total 75,676 21,736 8,833 191,984

Notes: Income data exclude households that did not respond to the question. White, black, Asian, and multirace householders are non-Hispanic. Hispanic householders may be of any race. Tabulations use JCHS-adjusted weights. For more
information about the re-weighting methodology, see www.jchs.harvard.edu/research/improving-americas-housing.
Source: JCHS tabulations of HUD, American Housing Survey.

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE REMODELING MARKET JOINT CENTER FOR HOUSING STUDIES OF HARVARD UNIVERSIT Y 30
 Table A-4

Professional and Do-It-Yourself Improvement Expenditures by Homeowner Characteristics: 2013

Professional Do-It-Yourself

Number of Homeowners Average Total Homeowners Average Total

Homeowners Reporting Projects Expenditure Expenditures Reporting Projects Expenditure Expenditures
(000s) (000s) ($) (Millions of $) (000s) ($) (Millions of $)
Income
Under $40,000 24,095 4,356 6,346 27,642 2,494 2,291 5,714
$40,000–79,999 22,360 4,594 7,683 35,294 3,119 3,001 9,360
$80,000–119,999 13,811 3,205 10,020 32,115 2,095 3,874 8,117
$120,000 and Over 14,312 4,008 15,599 62,519 1,957 5,028 9,360

Home Value
Under $100,000 19,627 3,375 5,338 18,017 2,602 2,414 6,280
$100,000–149,999 12,894 2,742 6,448 17,684 1,846 2,772 5,118
$150,000–199,999 11,358 2,556 7,771 19,859 1,629 2,881 4,693
$200,000–249,999 7,621 1,777 8,170 14,521 1,018 3,884 3,954
$250,000–399,999 13,231 3,063 12,437 38,096 1,625 4,203 6,830
$400,000 and Over 10,944 2,805 17,942 50,330 1,063 6,214 6,603

Age of Householder
Under 35 8,907 1,658 6,998 11,604 1,518 3,867 5,868
35–44 12,161 2,526 11,361 28,696 1,882 4,010 7,547
45–54 16,327 3,541 11,080 39,233 2,462 3,546 8,730
55–64 16,635 3,773 10,335 38,999 2,122 3,036 6,442
65 and Over 21,646 4,820 8,293 39,974 1,800 2,718 4,891

Generation
Millennial (Born 1985-2004) 2,877 492 6,390 3,145 457 3,852 1,760
Trailing Gen-X (Born 1975-84) 10,237 2,036 9,085 18,492 1,752 4,120 7,217
Leading Gen-X (Born 1965-74) 13,852 2,910 11,200 32,588 2,148 3,529 7,579
Trailing Baby Boom (Born 1955-64) 17,298 3,813 11,125 42,421 2,450 3,562 8,727
Leading Baby Boom (Born 1945-54) 15,446 3,603 9,810 35,342 1,759 2,998 5,272
Pre-Baby Boom (Born before 1945) 15,965 3,466 7,652 26,517 1,218 2,400 2,105

Race/Ethnicity
White 58,826 12,892 10,170 131,105 7,782 3,449 26,843
Black 6,355 1,457 6,482 9,444 631 2,797 1,763
Hispanic 6,738 1,182 9,026 10,668 982 3,293 3,235
Asian 2,593 534 9,935 5,304 220 4,888 1,075
Multirace 1,163 254 7,810 1,985 168 3,345 562

Spending Level
Under $2,500 9,309 5,360 869 4,658 4,939 635 3,138
$2,500–4,999 3,345 2,734 3,215 8,791 1,339 2,274 3,044
$5,000–9,999 3,979 3,481 6,280 21,857 1,525 3,581 5,462
$10,000–19,999 2,853 2,633 12,058 31,751 1,166 5,889 6,867
$20,000–34,999 1,240 1,151 23,539 27,089 441 11,692 5,159
$35,000–49,999 445 416 36,511 15,192 159 19,371 3,079
$50,000 and Over 565 544 90,397 49,168 214 31,441 6,729
No Projects 53,940

Total 75,676 16,319 9,713 158,506 9,783 3,422 33,478

Notes: Income data exclude households that did not respond to the question. White, black, Asian, and multirace householders are non-Hispanic. Hispanic householders may be of any race. Tabulations use JCHS-adjusted weights. For more
information about the re-weighting methodology, see www.jchs.harvard.edu/research/improving-americas-housing.
Source: JCHS tabulations of HUD, American Housing Survey.

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE REMODELING MARKET JOINT CENTER FOR HOUSING STUDIES OF HARVARD UNIVERSIT Y 31
 Table A-5

Metropolitan Trends in Home Improvement and Repair Spending: 2013

Garden-Style Rental
Owner-Occupied Homes Apartment Properties

Average Annual Per-Owner Improvement Spending ($) Average

Share of Annual
Share of Spending on Average Repair and
Homeowners Improvements Annual Capital Maintenance
Reporting Costing $50,000 Expenditures Expenditures
Metropolitan Projects or More Energy- per Unit per Unit
Area (Percent) (Percent) Total Professional Do-It-Yourself Discretionary Replacements Sensitive ($) ($)
Atlanta, GA* 31 24 3,050 2,660 390 1,050 1,380 1,100 800 460
Austin, TX 32 38 3,480 2,970 510 1,420 1,250 980 1,060 440
Baltimore, MD 31 28 3,420 2,940 490 1,250 1,530 1,160 850 560
Birmingham, AL* 28 22 2,410 2,110 310 730 1,040 850 480 400
Boston, MA 30 50 4,890 4,350 540 2,160 2,030 1,320 930 660
Buffalo, NY* 35 19 3,240 2,620 620 1,170 1,630 1,340 - -
Charlotte, NC* 33 18 3,110 2,720 390 950 1,500 1,220 910 390
Chicago, IL 27 26 2,520 2,160 360 980 1,100 910 910 530
Cincinnati, OH* 33 16 2,670 2,100 570 940 1,210 960 900 420
Cleveland, OH* 32 15 2,660 2,160 490 1,060 1,090 920 - -
Columbus, OH* 32 34 3,120 2,620 500 1,460 1,170 940 1,110 400
Dallas, TX* 33 23 2,960 2,540 420 950 1,290 1,050 1,020 470
Denver, CO* 35 24 4,000 3,320 680 1,430 1,590 1,250 1,210 380
Detroit, MI 27 16 1,920 1,570 350 690 870 720 1,060 410
Hartford, CT 29 30 3,260 2,790 470 1,320 1,340 1,070 - -
Houston, TX 27 26 2,310 1,800 510 950 880 630 780 420
Indianapolis, IN* 34 17 2,870 2,290 570 1,090 1,220 990 1,020 440
Jacksonville, FL 22 14 1,840 1,450 380 610 840 680 980 450
Kansas City, MO* 34 15 3,160 2,760 410 1,020 1,390 1,190 840 440
Las Vegas, NV 27 23 1,700 1,330 370 650 640 400 640 400
Los Angeles, CA* 27 37 3,140 2,620 520 1,700 960 630 1,270 500
Louisville, KY 35 21 3,460 2,870 590 1,060 1,540 1,310 - -
Memphis, TN* 33 18 2,340 2,100 250 740 930 730 660 490
Miami, FL 23 27 2,010 1,660 340 820 870 700 - -
Milwaukee, WI* 35 20 3,370 2,850 530 1,160 1,640 1,390 - -
Minneapolis, MN 32 28 3,530 2,930 600 1,420 1,440 1,180 1,520 680
Nashville, TN 31 19 2,990 2,570 430 880 1,460 1,230 870 430
New Orleans, LA* 24 26 2,220 1,830 390 810 910 680 - -
New York, NY 25 44 3,670 3,110 560 1,180 1,130 920 - -
Oklahoma City, OK 34 27 3,970 3,470 490 810 1,730 1,490 - -
Orlando, FL 22 24 1,770 1,420 350 650 770 620 800 460
Philadelphia, PA 32 26 3,210 2,810 410 1,290 1,300 990 960 640
Phoenix, AZ* 35 32 3,840 3,380 460 1,190 1,410 1,130 960 370
Pittsburgh, PA* 34 14 2,750 2,250 500 1,040 1,120 870 - -
Portland, OR* 33 25 3,130 2,550 580 1,360 1,170 850 1,070 270
Providence, RI* 32 42 4,020 3,310 710 1,480 1,930 1,600 - -
Richmond, VA 27 25 2,420 2,030 390 850 1,010 800 840 400
Riverside, CA* 28 34 2,630 2,140 490 1,170 790 550 790 540
Rochester, NY 34 21 2,770 2,190 580 1,160 1,200 910 - -
Sacramento, CA* 31 16 2,760 2,260 510 1,050 1,030 800 500 800
St. Louis, MO* 31 13 2,380 1,910 470 780 1,000 800 660 320
San Antonio, TX 30 18 2,130 1,700 430 700 970 750 550 400
San Diego, CA* 28 32 3,390 2,950 450 1,770 1,010 720 970 430
San Francisco, CA* 29 39 3,760 3,200 560 1,970 1,200 840 1,450 430
San Jose, CA* 27 42 3,890 3,470 430 1,900 1,360 980 - -
Seattle, WA 32 35 3,390 2,700 690 1,540 1,240 990 1,020 330
Tampa, FL 28 26 2,440 2,060 390 920 1,070 900 1,170 510
Tucson, AZ 32 21 2,420 1,990 430 950 1,080 760 820 310
Virginia Beach, VA* 33 34 3,180 2,750 440 1,240 1,370 1,120 650 300
Washington, DC 32 45 4,960 4,530 440 2,110 1,910 1,430 1,260 680

50 Metro Average 30 26 3,010 2,540 470 1,150 1,230 970 930 460

United States 29 29 2,540 2,090 440 1,000 980 760 880 440

Notes: Homeowner improvement spending for the 50 metro areas is pooled from the 2011 and 2013 American Housing Surveys. Spending levels in 2011 for 26 metros (indicated by asterisk) are adjusted by the CPI-U for All Items, as well as by the
national change in average spending from 2011 to 2013. See Table A-1 for definitions of discretionary and replacement projects. Energy-sensitive projects include roofing, siding, windows/doors, insulation, and HVAC.
Survey data from the National Apartment Association cover rental apartment properties with 50 or more units under professional management with stabilized operations. Average annual apartment expenditures were calculated over 2012–13 for
metro areas with a minimum of 2,000 apartment units and 10 properties sampled. See NAA survey for definitions of capital expenditures and repairs and maintenance.
Sources: JCHS tabulations of HUD, American Housing Surveys; National Apartment Association, Surveys of Operating Income and Expenses.

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE REMODELING MARKET JOINT CENTER FOR HOUSING STUDIES OF HARVARD UNIVERSIT Y 32
For additional information,
please contact:
Joint Center for Housing Studies
Harvard University
1033 Massachusetts Avenue, 5th Floor
Cambridge, MA 02138
Improving America’s Housing—Emerging Trends in the Remodeling Market was prepared by the
Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies. The Center advances understanding of housing issues
and informs policy. Through its research, education, and public outreach programs, the Center
helps leaders in government, business, and the civic sectors make decisions that effectively
address the needs of cities and communities. Through graduate and executive courses, as well
as fellowships and internship opportunities, the Joint Center also trains and inspires the next
generation of housing leaders.

617.495.7908 William Apgar Elizabeth La Jeunesse Jennifer Molinsky

www.jchs.harvard.edu Kermit Baker Mary Lancaster Nicolas Retsinas

Pamela Baldwin Irene Lew Mark Richardson

Twitter: @Harvard_JCHS
Kerry Donahue Karen Manning Rocio Sanchez-Moyano

Rachel Drew Ellen Marya Alexander von Hoffman

Angela Flynn George Masnick Abbe Will

Christopher Herbert Daniel McCue

Editor
Marcia Fernald

Design
John Skurchak
Joint Center for Housing Studies
of Harvard University
FIVE DECADES OF HOUSING RESEARCH
SINCE 1959